Ted Cruz has just been sworn into office, and already rumors of a presidential run are swirling. Pundits are questioning if Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen eligible to run for president. Ted Cruz was born in Canada in 1970 of an American citizen mother and Cuban father.

Many incorrectly assume one has to be born in a U.S. state or territory to be a natural born citizen, but the term “natural born citizen” refers to whether the person was a citizen at birth or became a citizen through naturalization. The 14th amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Ted Cruz was not born in a U.S. state or territory, so clearly he is not a birthright citizen under the 14th amendment. However, under federal law, he was still born a citizen, which makes Ted Cruz a natural born citizen. One criteria for “Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories” from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services:

Eleanor Darragh, mother of Ted Cruz, was raised in Delaware, graduated from a Catholic High School in the U.S., as well as Rice University, so clearly she meets the residency requirements.

Natural born citizen defined

Our constitution doesn’t specifically define “natural born citizen” but is framed in English common law in effect at the time, and under English common law the term “natural born citizen” is understood to be a citizen at birth.

Blackstone defined “natural born subjects” as those born within the dominions of England, as amended by statute. In a monarchy, citizens are called “subjects” while in a Republic, “subjects” are called “citizens.” Americans stopped calling themselves “subjects” and began calling themselves “citizens”, consistent with the change in form of government from monarchy to republic. Blackstone’s commentaries was the most authoritative source on English Common law for over a century. From William Blackstone (1765), Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.

However, Blackstone also recognizes natural born citizenship for subjects born abroad. English common law is comprised of precedents, court decisions, as amended by statutes.

Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2 (passed in 1350). that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

The Naturalization Act of 1790, passed just 12 months after our constitution became effective in 1789, undoubtedly reflects the understanding of “natural born citizen” in effect in that era, and states:

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…

A 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office concludes:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans. Reposted – original link.

Now before all you noise makers on the extreme right get your knickers in a wad, this is not a story about amnesty. But it is a story about fixing a problem that should have been fixed in the last decade. It is also a story about learning how to communicate our message in a way that doesn’t drive away people who should be aligned with our core values and principles. Immigration is a problem Democrats don’t want to fix because it is an effective wedge issue to keep Hispanics, who share your same social conservative values, from voting with you.

So called “conservative” organizations like FAIR and NumbersUSA are really left wing environmental and pro-choice backed groups that have figured out they can play your amnesty string and keep you so pissed off at illegal immigrants that now, in some circles, the word Hispanic is equal to “illegal alien”.

If the Democrats wanted to solve this problem, they would have pushed through Congressman Luis Gutierrez’ reform plan back in 2009. They clearly could have passed it in the House and Senate without one single Republican vote. But they did not. Why? Because it is a winning strategy for Democrats to use against Republicans.

Recently, conservative icon and radio talkshow host Sean Hannity told his listeners that he has “evolved” on immigration. That is what smart people do after a decisive loss. They look at issues that caused their defeat and find ways to fix them. In this election, Republicans only earned the vote of 29% of the Hispanics who voted. It is not because Hispanics want amnesty or abortion or many of the other liberal social policies of the left. It is because our rhetoric drives them away from us.

“We’ve got to get rid of the immigration issue altogether,” he said. “It’s simple to me to fix it. I think you control the border first. You create a pathway for those people that are here. You don’t say you’ve got to go home. And that is a position that I’ve evolved on. Because, you know what, it’s got to be resolved. The majority of people here, if some people have criminal records you can send them home, but if people are here, law-abiding, participating for years, their kids are born here, you know, it’s first secure the border, pathway to citizenship, done, whatever little penalties you want to put in there, if you want, and it’s done.”

Wow, that sounds an awful lot like “The Texas Solution” Plank of the Republican Party of Texas 2012 Platform. While not a perfect solution, The Texas Solution makes steps in the right direction.

Hannity has already caught a lot of heat for his “evolution”. But it is a necessary step. For the Republican Party to survive and succeed in this era of changing demographics we must evolve and reshape our message without changing our core values. Fox News reports this is happening among conservatives and other Republicans. I stand alongside Hannity on this issue.

But winning the Hispanic vote is not just about immigration reform. Like many other minority groups, Hispanics should be aligned with Republicans because many of our core values align. But that is not enough. We cannot simply reach out with an immigration reform olive branch. We must look for ways to make minorities feel wanted in the Republican Party. Those minorities who have come to the Republican Party have done well. Look at Senator Marco Rubio, Senator-Elect Ted Cruz, New Mexico and Governor Susana Martinez. Look at the number of Hispanic state legislators in Texas have been elected these past few years. But when you get to the grassroots level, minorities tell me they don’t feel welcomed when the attend Republican meetings and other conservative groups. They don’t want to be put on a pedestal, they want to be included.

We have a long way to go to rebuild the Republican brand. The liberal media will hold onto the myths like the “Republican War on Women” and will continue to drive the wedge between Republicans and Blacks, or Republicans and Hispanics. That is just who they are. It is what they are motivated to do. But we must stop giving them soundbites to use against us. Comments from Akin and Mourdock did more to harm Republicans this year because the media will amplify it and keep beating the drum. They completely ignored the insane remarks by Harris County DA Candidate Lloyd Oliver and his war against women.

When the media comes to Tea Party and Republican events, they will look for the most extreme looking or sounding people they can find and make them our icon. We must shift this tone and lead our way out of this. For every idiot they find to quote, we must put forth fifty true Republican voices that speak the truth about what we believe.

President Ronald Reagan believed winning elections required winning the communications war. We have been losing that for a very long time and it is time to take it back. It is time for us to evolve. To evolve into people who communicate our ideas in a way that is not offensive to others. Many times it is not what we say, but how we say it. It is the angry tone or the hostile rhetoric that drives the wedge. We must learn to communicate in a way that conveys our values and principles but in an educational and non-judgmental way.

It is a long road to 2014 and even longer to 2016. We have many battles to fight and win along the way. Let’s see if we can win some more allies along the way.

One of the most important questions running through Mitt Romney’s mind while considering whom to choose for his Vice-Presidential nomination is – can U.S. Senator Marco Rubio bring in Florida with its 29 electoral votes and can he help keep President Obama’s Hispanic margin down?

Liberal Democrat Hispanics and their polling colleagues at Latino Decisions say Rubio doesn’t help Romney among Hispanic registered voters, but there is a better answer to that question. It was provided by Hispanic Republicans in Texas on run-off day, Tuesday the 30th.

Not only did Ted Cruz receive a mountain of votes in his 56.8% to 43.2% defeat of the Texas’ Lt. Governor but he received a mountain of Hispanic Republican votes as well.

A study of each Texas county on the border with Mexico demonstrates that a Cuban-American can receive Mexican American votes. Examples: Cameron County with 87% Mexican Americans produced a 62.6% victory for Cruz; Zapata County with 92% Mexican Americans voted 75% for Cruz. Webb County with 95% Mexican Americans produced a 55.7% Cruz victory. The largest border county is El Paso with 82% of its people Mexican American, produced a 73.3% Cruz victory; Val Verde County is the only border county to have voted for Cruz’ opponent.

The question, then, of whether or not Senator Marco Rubio can help Romney with Hispanic votes has been answered. Rubio is far more attractive than Ted Cruz, in my opinion, yet Cruz romped with Texas Hispanics when they chose between his new face and an old one who spent millions of his own dollars and outspent Cruz 3 to 1.

The Rubio-can-help theory has much more import today than it did the Monday before the Texas run-off for reasons that cause a lifelong Hispanic Republican like me to cackle. Even as Democrats play catch-up by naming San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro as their keynote speaker 26 years after the Republican Party pioneered Hispanic outreach by having United States Treasurer Katherine Ortega deliver the ’84 Keynote speech, Democrats have a long way to go.

Chris Cilliza of the Washington Post writes:

“Cruz, a Cuban-American, joins Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Govs. Bobby Jindal (La.), Susana Martinez (N.M.), Nikki Haley (S.C.) and Brian Sandoval (Nev.)… as non-white Republicans — Cruz, Rubio, Sandoval and Martinez are Hispanic, Jindal and Haley are Indian-American… — that are nearly certain to run for national office, serve on a national ticket or be mentioned for a national ticket at some point in the not-too-distant future.”

“For a party that has struggled in recent years to escape the caricature that it is dominated by old, white men, the spate of minority faces rising to statewide office is a welcome development,” Cilliza writes.

“To be clear, a handful of Hispanic, Indian-American… elected officials with star potential does not mean that the Republican Party is changing top to bottom…”

If these words were written by a life-long Republican their meaning and potential impact would be minimal. Coming from a highly-placed Washington Post politics writer, they are gold-plated for independents and people that pay attention to politics from high above everyday run-of-the-mill inside newspaper stories.

Four heavyweight Hispanic governors and Senators compared to no Democrat Hispanic governors and one Senator equals a four-to-one image that cannot be matched in any way by Democrats. Add in Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley, Indian-Americans and the GOP stomps Harry Reid and his gang of wimps. The GOP pioneered election victories by Arab Americans for Governor of New Hampshire and Oregon and who can miss Lebanese American Darrell Issa in the House of Representatives?

Combining the view that the GOP is making huge strides with “minority” governors and senators nationally, we now see that Mexican Americans (63% of all Hispanics) will, in fact, vote for a Cuban American.

That plows under the canard that Mexicans won’t vote for a Romney-Rubio ticket this November.

In the long term, these words from the Washington Post’s Chris Cilliza have great import:

“Given how badly the party has struggled among non-white voters, however, the crop of minority candidates with a legitimate case to make it on the national stage (at some point) is a stunning development and can, if the GOP plays it right, help it change the face — figuratively and literally — of the GOP.”

Will the GOP “play it right?” It will if I have anything to do with it along with, of course, soon-to-be U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio and Governors Susana Martinez (NM) and Brian Sandoval (NV). And, let us not forget the seven Hispanic congress people in the House of Representatives.
Editors note: As with all postings on this blog which appear with a byline, the posting represents the author’s opinion and not the official position of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

###

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official(1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.